ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. MTJ-98-1170.November 12, 2001]

RUDY PRADO vs. JUDGE JOSE P. NACIONAL

SECOND DIVISION

Gentleman:

Quoted hereunder ,for your information ,is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 12 2001.

A.M. No. MTJ-98-1170(Rudy Prado vs. Judge Jose P. Nacional.)

This administrative complaint was filed by complainant Prado for alleged irregularity in the issuance of a warrant of arrest by respondent judge. It appears that complainant Prado stands charged with the crime of murder docketed as Criminal Case No. 1490. Respondent is the Judge of MCTC Camalig-Gainza-Milaor, Camarines Sur who conducted the preliminary examination and consequently issued a warrant of arrest against complainant Prado on May 12, 1995. On May 17, 1995, complainant Prado was apprehended and was later transferred to the Provincial Jail of Tinangis, Pili, Camarines Sur, upon the request of the Camaligan PNP.

Aggrieved of the circumstances that befell him, complainant Prado filed an administrative complaint charging respondent judge of (a) gross ignorance of the law, for issuing a warrant of arrest without the requisite examination of witnesses; (b) dereliction of duty, for denying bail; (c) partiality and oppression, for issuing warrant of arrest without first requiring accused to file counter-affidavits; and, (d) incompetence, for issuing warrants of arrest without any finding that the same is needed in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

Complainant Prado similarly questioned the warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge on October 27, 1994 in another murder case docketed as Criminal Case No. 1445 involving accused Romeo Moraleja and Remigildo De la Roca. Complainant Prado alleged that respondent judge merely relied on the sworn statements of the witnesses which were attached to the complaint, then, immediately issued the warrants of arrest against the accused without the benefit of preliminary examination.

In Criminal Case No. 1490 for murder, herein complainant Prado is one of the accused. The Camaligan Police Station received a complaint as early as May 11, 1995 that a certain victim of mauling was in serious condition at the Bicol Regional Hospital. The victim's companion identified the suspects. In the morning of May 12, 1995, the victim died. In the afternoon of the same date, the victim's companions, namely Rodolfo Avila and Elizalde Junio, appeared as witnesses before respondent judge where the requisite preliminary examination was conducted. ¹ TSN of Criminal Case no. 1490 dated May 12, 1995.Subsequently, respondent judge issued the corresponding warrant of arrest. Complainant Prado assails the warrant of arrest issued because his counter-affidavit was not secured before the issuance of an arrest warrant.

Respondent judge satisfied the requirement of the law in issuing the warrant of arrest. He is not accountable for failing to secure the counter-affidavit of accused before issuing the warrant of arrest because the law does not require that a counter-affidavit must first be filed before a warrant of arrest may be issued.

Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the 1985 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a Municipal Trial Court judge to issue a warrant of arrest if the judge is TSN of Criminal Case No. 1490 dated May 12, 1995 satisfied, after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and the witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Respondent judge conducted the requisite preliminary examination and, after satisfying himself that a probable cause exists that the crime of murder has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof, issued the corresponding warrant of arrest for the murder case. The mere silence of the records or the absence of any express declaration in the assailed Order dated May 12, 1995. ² Rollo, p. 8.that there is a need to place the accused in immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice does not give rise to any adverse inference against respondent judge. The latter enjoys in his favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Besides, respondent judge has convincingly explained to the court the necessity of placing the accused in immediate custody. ³ "Comments" filed by respondent judge at p. 3.As supported by records, the crime was committed on May 11, 1995 and the accused [herein complainant Prado] was only apprehended on May 17, 1995. ⁴ Rollo, pp. 12-13.

As for Criminal Case No. 1445 entitled People vs. Romeo Moraleja and Remigildo De la Roca, complainant Prado likewise assails the warrant of arrest issued in this case by respondent judge allegedly because the warrant of arrest was also issued without first conducting a preliminary examination. In this case, complainant Prado's imputation of lack of preliminary examination was anchored on the ready-made 'preliminary inquiry' form with the blank spaces merely filled-out. The Order dated October 25, 1994 declares, among others, that

"It appearing from the written statement/s given by the complaining witness and his/her witnesses in support of the complaint to be sufficient searching questions and answers for the purpose of finding probable cause, all of the same are hereby adopted as questions of the court as welt as of the answers to the same as given by the witness presented. x x x' ⁵ Rollo, p.7.

Again, the presumption of regularity prevails until it is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. After all, complainant Prado, not being a party to the case, failed to substantiate his allegations. ⁶ TSN, July 11,2000, p. 45 ; TSN July 24, 2000, pp. 11-12. In fact, the sworn statement of the witness for the prosecution was subscribed a nd sworn to before the respondent judge himself. The affiant in this case even declared and affirmed before respondent judge the truth and veracity of the contents and statements submitted to the court. ⁷ Rollo, p. 9.Nevertheless, to forestall any similar imputations of irregularity in the issuance of warrant of arrest, respondent judge should refrain from adopting by reference the statements submitted. In sum, the Constitutional provision which explicitly mandates that no " warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce," ⁸ Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.is the parameter for assessing the regularity in the issuance of an arrest warrant. As explained by the Court -

"What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause." ⁹ Cited in Ho vs. People, 280 SCRA 365 [1997], pp.374-375.

WHEREFORE, Judge Jose P. Nacional of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Camaligan-Gainza-Milaor, Camarines Sur is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE